The Blog

I received an urgent, “Action Alert” from our friends at Change.org today with the subject line, “Demand Worldwide Access to Lifesaving Medicine.” I should start by saying that I like the initiative — I support Change’s hands on approach that includes hiring an organizer and being more actively involved in their users’ campaigns. It is a huge added value for their nonprofit clients along with their other recent improvements at the social network for change makers.

I opened the email to investigate further.

Five years ago this past week, a major tsunami struck in the Indian Ocean, causing widespread devastation. The world responded with an immediate outpouring of food and medical supplies.

The callout image does tell me this has to do with, “Lifesaving medical care,” but the first sentence doesn’t tell me what this action is about. Tsunami? Is this related to the Boxing Day Tsunami? Maybe, climate change? Perhaps, we will find more clarity as the email continues?

This year, no headline-grabbing natural disaster struck the nation’s consciousness. But that doesn’t mean worldwide suffering has lessened. On the contrary, we’ve now reached a point where one third of the world’s population – more than 2 billion people – lacks access to the lifesaving medicines and humanitarian aid they need to get through each day.

Unfortunately, when suffering doesn’t make the news, it is easily forgotten.

We have gone three paragraphs and one descriptive link into the email, but I still have no idea what the petition is actually promoting. I don’t know what is THE ASK! We didn’t have a tsunami or a Katrina, but people need “access.” I no longer wanted to sign the petition, but I had to investigate further and go to the link, which is a petition by AmeriCares. Unfortunately, the petition isn’t much help either. By the way, this is the point that I realize that the petition was launched Dec. 26th to coincide with the five year anniversary of the tsunami. Neither Change.org or AmeriCares updated the email, which still says:

Today (emphasis mine), on the anniversary of the tragic tsunami that galvanized people across the globe, you can add your name to the global call asking world leaders to commit to providing access to lifesaving medicine to all the world’s people – whenever they need it.

This is THE ASK. The text on the petition page is even more of a nonspecific mouthful:

Today you can add your name to the global call asking world leaders to join in the effort to fulfill our collective responsibility to increase access to lifesaving medicine to all the world’s people – wherever they are, whenever they need it. Our generation has the power to demand action on behalf of the men, women and children whose survival depends on our help. Your voice will bring us one step closer to that goal.

Let’s deconstruct the ask. The target is “World leaders,” or, as the petition headline says, “TARGETING: The International Community.” “World Leaders” is the shorthand that has become far too common in these type of global petitions for Heads of State. I’m not entirely sure who is, “the International Community.” Is it all of us? Is it international institutions like the UN, World Bank, WHO? At any rate, the target is not defined at worst, and completely amorphous at best. AmeriCares is not alone here. “World leaders” are a favorite target of international NGOs. Sometimes this signals a lack of understanding in who are the actual power players. Other times, this is a byproduct of organizations wanting to target the most powerful HoS (usually Obama) without expressly saying this.

Strike one may be that we don’t know exactly who we are asking to act; strike two is that the action is not explicit. These leaders are being asked to, “…join in the effort to fulfill our collective responsibility to increase access to lifesaving medicine to all the world’s people – wherever they are, whenever they need it.” Huh? World leaders and the international community are being asked to “join in the effort.” Which effort? How exactly will they “fulfill our collective responsibility.”

The petition desperately needs to call for 3-5 very specific actions that will increase access lifesaving medicine and health care. Instead, it is targeting nobody in particular and calling for nothing concrete. AmeriCares may simply be trying to grow their Change.org profile and database, but can’t they ask for something specific even in a general movement building type of petition? If they did, they would find a much higher success rate. As it is, the petition gives the potential signatoy no sense of what will be achieved (how to measure success) or who has the power to achieve the goal (who needs to change for success to be achieved). Can we measure success short of universal health care for every human being?

AmeriCares is asking for my “voice,” but I have no idea why, and I don’t know what my voice can achieve. They end their call to arms with the uplifting sentence, “Our generation has the power to demand action on behalf of the men, women and children whose survival depends on our help.” After reading their petition, I don’t agree. I feel powerless, not empowered. I suppose it is a good thing I’m not “The International Community.” Or, am I?

I don't think it's very nice or polite to slag off on a charity who is trying to help needy people. I signed the petition and am proud to support them.

http://jasonwhat.com jasonwhat

Thanks, Sue. To be clear, I'm not “slagging off” their mission or the charity. My issue is with both how AmeriCares and Change.org carried out this petition and email campaign. This blog looks at best practices related to media, new media, technology, and social good. It is not about AmeriCares or Change, but a lesson to be learned (I concede that I might be completely wrong, btw and happy to be shown the error of my ways). And I overtly support NGOs on these pages when appropriate (See: Why I'm making my end of year donation to Global Voices). AmeriCares noble mission is obscured and not served by this poorly designed and targeted petition campaign. Their mission is so vital that they can and must do better.

AmeriCares may be the unwitting bad example, but they are far from alone. This is common practice for many NGOs (including many of my own clients). It needs to stop. The lesson of 2009, especially with Copenhagen, was that business as usual will not lead to victory in the epic battle between the world's poor and corporate interests. They are hacking climate scientists emails and spending millions to lobby, we are still sending out generic emails.

By the way, Amil recently suggested we offer some free support to nonprofit orgs and blog about it to help others. I'm happy to extend that offer in this case.

http://twitter.com/EdPomfret Ed Pomfret

I agree with your analysis here. Although the cause is no doubt a good one the plague of petitions asking people to lend their voice to an unclear ask is a trap that almost all campaigning organisations fall into at one point or another. This isn't about the specific charity, for me it's about all of us moving beyond the standard digital campaigning response which is often “let's have a petition targeted at something to show people are raising their voices against this outrage”. Often petitions are ignored or binned by those being targeted. We all need to get more creative and have a sharper focus with online actions IMHO.This whole problem is sent up very well by this facebook group:An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding That Some Sort Of Action Be Taken:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59306991210

Sue I can't comprehend what you are saying because Jason is doing the charity a favor. They wouldn't get such good analysis if they paid a consultant for it. Petitions like this make the whole online petition experience meaningless.

http://jasonwhat.com jasonwhat

Love the passion. I agree, the winner here is AmeriCares. Some constructive criticism, and vocal support from an activist defending the organization. It's all part of the benefit of opening up conversations and greater transparency. There is so much value in orgs being open with their successes and mistakes.

http://www.adevelopingstory.org/ duckrabbit

I'm sorry but the petition is a joke.

Sue I can't comprehend what you are saying because Jason is doing the charity a favor. They wouldn't get such good analysis if they paid a consultant for it. Petitions like this make the whole online petition experience meaningless.

http://jasonwhat.com jasonwhat

Love the passion. I agree, the winner here is AmeriCares. Some constructive criticism, and vocal support from an activist defending the organization. It's all part of the benefit of opening up conversations and greater transparency. There is so much value in orgs being open with their successes and mistakes.